August 11, 2009

MEREDITH VIEIRA: This was definitely an uncharacteristic response by the Secretary of State, leading some to suggest that either she is jetlagged or jealous of her husband and the huge shadow that he casts, most notably last week in North Korea, where he negotiated the release of those two American journalists. What are insiders saying about this this morning?

ANDREA MITCHELL: Insiders would tell you probably a little of both. A lot of jetlag, clearly. By then she was at the half point in a twelve-day trip, seven countries. Very difficult travel. She had done twenty-two speeches and five interviews and she was exhausted—and and clearly, some would say, having a bad hair day. So not an easy day for Hillary Clinton.

Here's the old 3 a.m. ad, which was supposed to make us think Barack Obama would screw up when he was sleepy or something:

Obama seems tired/testy at times, but there's no video of him acting anywhere near as out of it as Hillary when she snapped in the Congo:

ADDED: Looking at the "Hillary snaps" clip one more time, I'm thinking if only she had smiled when she said that, it would have been if not just fine, kind of all right. She's teaching a feminist lesson — actually, an important one — and those things require a decent amount of lubrication.

Hillary unmasked as beyond rude and inappropriate--downright cruel to the questioner. There were a zillion more diplomatic responses to a questioner who might well have been overcome by nerves or mistranslated. This is our leadership today--vain, contemptuous of those "below" them, self-absorbed. Hillary should apologize, big time.

I try to maintain the highbrow WFB-type standards for political discourse and generally don't take any pleasure when someone on the other side of the political spectrum falls/fails/flails.

I do make an exception in Hillary's case, however. She is only person in the world that I can honestly say that, while I've not met her, I hate her. It's a strong word, I know, but she embodies just about everything I dislike in politicians, left or right.

If you have kids, then you understand the sentiment of "look-at-me-look-at-me". Hillary is a walking example of that childish insecurity.

Obama...well, I think I could honestly sit down and have a beer with the guy. I've not arrested any Harvard profs lately, though, or been referenced directly in a press conference, so I'm not expecting an invitation.

The question came from a young person in a patriarchal culture where it would be common and understood that the woman would be merely a mouthpiece for the husband and the wondering question of what the MAN in the relationship thought would be a coherent and logical question...in their culture.

The fact that Hillary is unable to view outside of her very own personal world view, as a strident 60's feminist, or put herself (metaphorically) into the other person's world view/cultural influences....does not speak well of her ability to be Secretary of State.

As Sec of State, she is going to be interacting with a lot of people, diplomats and situations where HER cultural viewpoint is not the norm. If she can't or won't bend or at least put aside her prejudices and deal with these people in a diplomatic way, then she is going to be a piss poor representative of the United States.

Never mind....she IS a piss poor Secretary of State and probably really irritated that Bill just won't get out of the way and off of the stage. However to take her own problems out on an innocent bystander in the diplomatic area shows how terrible and inadequate she is as a Sec of State and how horrible she would have been as President.

Although, I don't know how anyone could possibly be worse than Obama and his cast of clowns and thugs.

I might buy jetlag as an excuse if she flew over to Congo coach-class on United, but we all know that she travels on some of the best-appointed private jets in the world with an enormous entourage to cater to her every whim.

When you travel on a US Air Force VIP airplane, "jetlag" is no longer an excuse for poor performance.

Hillary was out of line. She should man up and admit that she could have calibrated her response differently.

She had all the qualifications a carpetbagger needs. Or a sniper-dodger, I can't remember which...

To Dust Bunny's point, isn't it the Left that's so convinced of their moral superiority when dealing with nuances; claiming the intellectual high ground with the old, "we use quill pens while they use crayons/we like The English Patient while they like Die Hard" argument? I've actually heard those come out of libs' mouths, believe it or not.

The funny thing is, Die Hard was wildly more popular and successful and, frankly, crayons can be bought damned near anywhere while quill pens are a boutique item at best.

BTW.. why should sexism be tolerated just because it is in another culture?

Because Hillary's job is Secretary of State, not Professor of Womyn's Studies at Wellesly. She's supposed to be in Africa to further the interests of the United States, which she definitely didn't do by getting pissed off at some Congolese college kid.

Lisa doesn't get it either and is just as culturally blind as Hillary and the rest of the Libs.

It might be a sexist question to YOU because of who you are and where you grew up and the culture in which you are immersed.

HOWEVER, to the person who asked the question it was a part of their culture and was not sexist in the least.

It really doesn't matter to anyone what YOU think or how YOU would react to the situation.

It DOES matter that the Secretary of State for the United States can't be diplomatic or able to even attempt to understand other cultures. The Obama administration's motto of "Fuck you we won"....really isn't going to play well in the international arena.

BTW.. why should sexism be tolerated just because it is in another culture?

Welcome to the rich vibrant world of multiculturalism that the left has bent over backwards to force feed to the rest of us. The left, particularly academia has insisted we subscribe to cultural equivalency. So when some young African raised in a male dominated society puts you in your place, thank Berkley et al and brush up on your cultural sensitivity training.

"BTW.. why should sexism be tolerated just because it is in another culture?"

Oh, I dunno. For the same reason a cute little puppy sitting on a police cap didn't cause an uproar in Scotland?

Oh wait....that's right, it DID, because only Western Democracies bend over backward to be "culturally sensitive". Everyone else exploits that fact.

It doesn't have to be a sexist question for someone to be keenly interested in what Former Two-Term President Of The United States William Clinton thinks about something. It just requires interest. Bad timing? Sure. Sexist? Prove it without speculating or drop it.

The puppy thing? The Muslim community in Scotland should be more sensitive to the fact that it has been a cultural norm for centuries in the west to keep dogs not only as domesticated livestock, but actual friends and members of one's families. That they can't grasp that fact just illustrates how culturally insensitive THEY are.

I think something's going on with Hillary beyond just jealousy and jetlag. I believe she's been locked in a power struggle behind the scenes with the Obama regime, and it's not going well for her. If anything, Bill's trip to NoKo was a boost, not a hindrance, although it does rankle that he gets all the favorable attention. But I can't believe that the Clinton Machine would give up the reins of behind-the-throne power to the Chicago Machine so easily.

No. That would be the American welfare system. Who needs a husband when Uncle Sugar will support you?

Africa is a mostly patriarchal society.

I recall clearly being taught in a college comparative sociology class, about three years ago, that patriarchism in Africa was a construct of British colonialism, that African culture for millenia had in fact been matriarchal, prior to the arrival of the white man, and this traditional way of thinking motivated African-American women to assume head-of-house duties, treating men & marriage as optional.

Of course, I was taught a great deal of frank hogwash in the same class; concepts like "all socieities are equally evolved; none are inherently more advanced than others," so it wouldn't surprise me that his particular factoid was also fabulist crap.

Dust Bunny Queen said..."Lisa doesn't get it either and is just as culturally blind as Hillary and the rest of the Libs.It might be a sexist question to YOU because of who you are and where you grew up and the culture in which you are immersed."

This young man asked Mrs. Clinton "What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?"The underlying assumption, which clearly WAS based upon his cultures traditional stereotypes, is that she has no opinion of her own. That is sexist and it is unacceptable.

Scott said, "It doesn't have to be a sexist question for someone to be keenly interested in what Former Two-Term President Of The United States William Clinton thinks about something. It just requires interest. Bad timing? Sure. Sexist? Prove it without speculating or drop it."

Let's quote the young man, shall we?"What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?"

I'm not a fan of Hillary, but I don't see anything wrong here. Assuming the question was translated correctly, it was offensive and sexist. Maybe she was a little touchy about it, but the nature of the question justified some degree of touchiness.

Let's try a different definition which fits more correctly into your prejudices and the value judgements you are making, ....shall we?

"Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] refers to the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism. Historically and across many cultures, sexism has resulted in the subjugation of women to men. Many men and women espousing feminism, masculism and other ideologies have worked toward dispelling sexist beliefs."

While I agree with you that the question was sexist, from the stand point of an American or Western woman...... The question and the attitude behind it was not according to the culture of the questioner.

That you cannot grasp that the whole world doesn't revolve around Lisa or Hillary or your ideas of what is proper, sexist or anything else, shows how narrow minded you are.

This is not a problem since "Lisa" doesn't mean doo squat in the world of International Politics. It IS a problem because Hillary is just as blind and narrow minded and SHE is the Secretary of State.

That is sexist and it is unacceptable.

I think you will find there is a whole lot going on in the world that is unacceptable to YOU that IS acceptable to other people. Does it make you right and everyone else wrong because they don't walk in lock step with "Lisa"?

If the attitudes of other people are unacceptable to you, what do you plan to do about it. Belittle them? Berate them, as Hillary did? Call them NAZIS like Pelosi does? Or would it have been a more "diplomatic" thing to answer or even sidestep the question and explain to the questioner nicely how different it might be perceived in the US compared to his/her country?

Can you help me out here? We don't have television in our home, buy magazines or listen to much radio so I don't get a lot of ads. We also use adblocker.

That would put you in the category of innocent through willful ignorance, wouldn't it? Haven't the feminists been carping that everyone should examine and study to find the chauvinism? This is different from examining and studying the producers of your products how?

This young man asked Mrs. Clinton "What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?"The underlying assumption, which clearly WAS based upon his cultures traditional stereotypes, is that she has no opinion of her own. That is sexist and it is unacceptable.

Can I assume then you're not a fan of multiculturalism then? Cause the standard leftist multi-culti dogma is you have no business imposing your progressive Western values on some other society.

Trust me I have done it several times on this blog and have been denounced as a racist.

This young man asked Mrs. Clinton "What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton?" The underlying assumption, which clearly WAS based upon his cultures traditional stereotypes, is that she has no opinion of her own. That is sexist and it is unacceptable.

Can I assume then you're not a fan of multiculturalism then? Cause the standard leftist multi-culti dogma is you have no business imposing your progressive Western values on some other society.

Trust me I have done it several times on this blog and have been denounced as a racist."

Multiculturalism is a pile of horse shit that folks use to excuse the mistreatment of women around the world among many other atrocities.

Can you help me out here? We don't have television in our home, buy magazines or listen to much radio so I don't get a lot of ads. We also use adblocker.

That would put you in the category of innocent through willful ignorance, wouldn't it? Haven't the feminists been carping that everyone should examine and study to find the chauvinism? This is different from examining and studying the producers of your products how?"

Maybe but I will also bet that the products I chose for my home don't make a lot of ads. I just don't think Horizon or Seventh Generation or Amy's spend a lot of money on ads.

What's wrong with her response? If she was rude, then so are most powerful people in this world. Only the "niceness is everything" viewpoint of today's 20 to 30 year olds sees a problem with clear confrontation in face of bad communications "accidentally" slipping out. My respect for Hillary has gone up, not down.

Multiculturalism is a pile of horse shit that folks use to excuse the mistreatment of women around the world among many other atrocities.

Good for you!

Actually, I doubt Hillary’s response was due to any whiff of sexism in the question but simply being upstaged yet again by Slick Willy. In any event her response should have been a bit more measured as the SoS because if she’s going to get her ass bent out of shape over a bullshit question by some college kid, Putin and Armaggedonjad are going to eat her for lunch

Maybe but I will also bet that the products I chose for my home don't make a lot of ads. I just don't think Horizon or Seventh Generation or Amy's spend a lot of money on ads.

You cherry pick your examples. Try the computer brand, your telecom and others not so "organic"."

Our computers and electronics are made by my husband's former employer. Never seen an ad from my telecom company portraying men as stupid. I look around and I simply don't see a lot of brandname stuff except for the organic . Sorry if you have a problem with that.

Multiculturalism is a pile of horse shit that folks use to excuse the mistreatment of women around the world among many other atrocities.

I AGREE. And I also agree with Hoosier.

I'm not arguing that the question wasn't sexist. The issue is the context, the cultural setting and that Hillary isn't a private citizen able to get a case of the ass when asked a question that was annoying.

As Secretary of State, Hillary should have been able to rise above her irritation with the question and be a diplomat who is representing the United States.

I fear that she is way way out of her league and will get her head(and ours by default) handed to her on a plate.

Multiculturalism is a pile of horse shit that folks use to excuse the mistreatment of women around the world among many other atrocities.

Good for you!

Actually, I doubt Hillary’s response was due to any whiff of sexism in the question but simply being upstaged yet again by Slick Willy. In any event her response should have been a bit more measured as the SoS because if she’s going to get her ass bent out of shape over a bullshit question by some college kid, Putin and Armaggedonjad are going to eat her for lunch"

Putin & Ahmadinejad are much more likley to eat Obama for lunch than her.

But I will say this, I have been dissappointed with some of her statements on Israel

It doesn't matter whether the question was insulting or not. The first diplomat of the nation does NOT react in that fashion. She lost it, pure and simple.

You would have never seen Condi Rice, Colin Powell or Madeline Albright react in this fashion. They would have stayed in control. It's what the job entails: keeping one's cool in sometimes adversarial conditions.

Now that the world has seen Clinton lose it at a farking student, the pros now have a clue as how to push her buttons, and you better believe they will try. Clinton just made her job far more difficult because she let herself lose face. She's a farkin' amateur.

You obviously fail to understand why Hillary is even there in Africa. She is supposedly trying to work with the current government for the aims of the US. She is not there to preach to the people nor is she there to change their whole society. Assume you walk up to someone who disagrees with you on the sexism issue. If you start from the point of lecturing them on their being sexists, just how far do you expect your working with them on the main issues you are there for will get.

I should be a good little girl and keep my little mouth shut because men clearly have the right to treat women as less than equals and punish those of us who complain?

No. No self-respecting man will tolerate a woman who can't tolerate. It's not the purpose of anyone else's life to live according to your standards. And, besides, your personality is too much like Hillary's.

Whew!! I don't know which is worse, Lisa's obvious willful, obdurate ignorance not only of the limits of her sexist view of the world and the clash between how feminism and multi-culturalism are widely ignored by feminists in the US (when that is to their benefit) or her constant patting herself on the back for her morally superior stances on sexism and consumerism.

This question, assuming it was translated correctly, was openly insulting. Just because she's a diplomat doesn't mean she has to stand for being insulted to her face.

Tell ya what, I'll retract and reserve judgment on her then until I see her treat our enemies in a similar manner. It's easy to smack down some no name college kid. Lets see her do that with Achmedenijad or Chavez or any of the other asshat dictators who I was told we need to dialogue with.

Interesting discussion--agree with Lisa that the question was indeed sexist with (apparent) underlying assumption that Ms. Clinton was simply a mouthpiece (oops--bad word choice) for her husband. On the other hand, I think it is imperative that our SecState be the diplomat in chief and could have answered much better--the multi-culti stuff is a bunch of crap. If Ms Clinton were serious about reducing sexism then should be advocating for AID or similar programs that have that as a goal. But she remains the diplomat in chief, and she blew it.

Hillary's reaction was completely reasonable and appropriate given the question. Have you seen the actual context of the clip, with the question she was asked? The translator may owe Hillary an apology, but she certainly doesn't owe any apologies for her response to what the translator said to her. And people are really thin skinned when it comes to the Clintons showing any level of emotion. They're constantly being categorized as blowing up or yelling, when they just seem moderately (and rightly) peeved or talk in a stern voice. If you think this is an outburst, you don't know what an outburst is.

"Our computers and electronics are made by my husband's former employer. Never seen an ad from my telecom company portraying men as stupid. I look around and I simply don't see a lot of brandname stuff except for the organic . Sorry if you have a problem with that."

Probably you meant assembled. You do understand the parts are predominantly Asian, a bastion of chauvinism.

Give me the name of the telecom and I'll bet I can find one fairly simply.

Do you travel by foot, or do you have a car? Etc, etc, etc.

I have no problem with it, I simply believe that you, like many shrill feminists, are in the do as I say group.

Oh...I know what an outburst is. I can do them at any time accompanies by purple fireworks and all the bells and whistles, but not with my clients.

I am a professional at work and do not let my personal feelings on political issues or anything else come into the conversations that I have with my clients. Granted, most of my clients are fairly conservative and smart investors: that's why they are with me :-). However, there are those who lean to the left and with whom I disagree. I would never DREAM of trying to influence their views, pick an argument or get snippy with them as Hillary did with the questioner.

They are in my office, my professional work arena, to accomplish a goal. Hillary was in her "professional work arena" to accomplish a goal. To be a diplomat representing the United States. Not to have a personal melt down. Not to berate a "client" or to get even with Bill or anyone else.

She didn't do her job and let her thin skinned anger rule her performance. NOT good for the top Diplomat of the Country. It showed a complete lack of competence or sensibility of place and sensitivity to the culture of the Country she was visiting.

@CA Cohen: Once again, it doesn't matter whether Clinton was justified in answering the way she did.

The fact remains that a diplomat does not act like this. It's like a trial lawyer telling the judge to take a flying fuck. There are just certain things you don't DO.

Clinton lost face here. The correct response would have been to ignore the slight and just answer the question. Humor the ignorant whenever possible, especially when you're in their home court. Show grace and grit. Ask the translator if you've gotten it right. And whatever you do, show a sense of humor. Never lose face. That was unforgivable on Clinton's part. It showed she was not up to the job. Whatever you think of sexism, feminism, etc., it doesn't matter within this context. There is NO excuse for the first diplomat of the United States to create a spectacle of herself.

Ask yourself this: When all is said and done, what will people remember about this trip by the US SoS to Africa after this fiasco? And what did it accomplish?

Not a farkin' thing. People will remember her moment of weakness. They will also remember she was a woman and displayed that temper for which she is well known. How does that play in the rest of the world, a world that has a innate predilection towards holding women to second class rank?

As I pointed out earlier. Rice, Powell & Albright would not have behaved this way. Whatever their faults, they were respected.

Chefmojo...You must not know anything about trial lawyers and Judges in action. Hillary used a brief display of legitimate anger to make the sincerety of her point. That display is like salt: it must be used sparingly and coupled with good will. But without it life devolves into androids mouthing smooth, programed PR puff pieces. Her attitude here showed that she possesses this valuable human skill needed among people in the real world. No one wants to deal with someone who always hides themselves from you.

Perhaps she's finally come to terms with the fact that she was overwhelmingly denied the presidency - a position, we all know, she felt she so ardently *deserved* - but, now that's she's been tossed the position of Sec. of State, she finds herself STILL having to answer for Billy-boy...and it still eats her up. So amusing really. Such a petulant little woman.

She is thoroughly pissed that both Bill and Obama got that job and she was rejected. She's a politician like them, but she knows she is superior to both. She has the misfortune of being both too "minority" and not enough at the same time. It must burn a hole every day. I don't like her politics, but I feel her pain.

"Obama...well, I think I could honestly sit down and have a beer with the guy."

Not me. I find him kinda, creepy. I could have beers with Bill or Hillary though. With either one, the night would get out control and fun. Hillary would get drunken horny or I would be Bill's wing man - either way I'd get laid.

Maguro said... I might buy jetlag as an excuse if she flew over to Congo coach-class on United, but we all know that she travels on some of the best-appointed private jets in the world with an enormous entourage to cater to her every whim.

When you travel on a US Air Force VIP airplane, "jetlag" is no longer an excuse for poor performance.

Jetlag is not a function of sitting in cramped economy seats. It is primarily a matter of different time zones with the bodies circadian rythms not having time to adjust.And the problem compounds when the business/government itinerary is high intensity with little time for rest. One firm I was at actually had rules and protocols to force people sent on business trips to rest and resist internal last minute "to dos" and cut out side crap like museum visits in favor of naps areound the impoortant meetings and stuff.

==================To me, HIllary's answer was bitchy, but it was a strong comeback to a sexist question. That will go over very well with Hillary's base of support here, sticking up for herself. The snotty Congolese student may be offended, but the only reason the student is in college in the 1st place is connection to Congos Ruling Elites now busy butchering their own kind.

===================== Old Dad said... Lisa,

Next time you're in Saudi Arabia, remind the first sexist pig male that his wife should not be subject to the Burkha.

See how well that works.

--------------They don't wear burquas in KSA. They wear abayahs.

And it is normal to be friendly, but assertive with the Sauds making presumptions, just as they can be here.We politely told the Sauds that - no, the woman with us was not there to fetch his coffee, but was a Wharton School MBA who was busy working some numbers at a meeting.And the Sauds can be assertive, too. A KSA business investment delegation with family along was asked by the CEOs wife of a rival firm to mine at the time to choose betwen two nice restaurants. The men conferred, picked one. The CEOs wife said they hadn't talked to their wives..and they should..She was told semi-politely to buzz off.

Lisa, you have to ask certain men to check your opinions before you can express them. Otherwise you will be jumped all over by various indignant people and your marriage and your performance as a woman and wife will be insulted ("Lisa, My condolences to your husband.") because you stepped out of line. This crap has happened to me elsewhere. I have not been back.

No unauthorized opinions! And you can't complain about sexism against women unless you complain louder about sexism against men! Because what concerns or happens to men is ALWAYS more important and if something hurts them it is WORSE!

When the Secretary of State is overseas, taking questions in a public forum on U.S. foreign policy, she is engaging in a public relations exercise on behalf of the United States. If she allows personal irritation to interfere with the PR exercise, she is doing a bad job.

C4 - I didn't say that Hillary wasn't jetlagged, just that jetlag/tiredness is not a valid excuse for poor performance. Sure, she was tired and her circadian clock was off but that's too bad. When you're Sec State, you have to suck it up and do your job even when you don't feel great.

If you think she did well, fine, I guess, but the post was about Mitchell excusing Hillary's gaffe by saying she was jetlagged, which is bullshit.

When your position is that of the top diplomat of the country then you should act as a diplomat. She did not. It would have been just as bad if it were a man and the same type of question had been asked about fashions. You need to sublimate your own feelings at that time. You can discuss them one on one with your fellow diplomat from that country but it is not your business to dis their total way of life.

As to the condolences to the husband, if Bill had been along but not with her at the time he would have been considered as a man without cojones and so would have been considered as a neuter. The whole thing could have been easily handled using normal diplomacy and she still could have dealt with the question. She chose not to. That is an embarrassment for her as it would be for anyone else in that position who dealt with it the same way.

Remember, this is the tip of the spear of the "Smart Diplomacy (TM)" set. That she apparently can't keep herself in check and respond diplomatically (which would as much as anything else include saying essentially the same thing she said but in one of those Kissinger/Greenspan monotonic deliveries to cover the "taking it personally" vibe of her performance, for instance) only casts doubt on the entire enterprise's purported and loudly self-trumpeted "smarts".

Sounding more like butt-trumpets everyday, this crowd we recently put into power.

BJM, your opinions must be acceptable to those people who do that. Evidently you did get the memo. Good for you.

"That you cannot grasp that the whole world doesn't revolve around Lisa or Hillary or your ideas of what is proper, sexist or anything else, shows how narrow minded you are."

"Whew!! I don't know which is worse, Lisa's obvious willful, obdurate ignorance not only of the limits of her sexist view of the world and the clash between how feminism and multi-culturalism are widely ignored by feminists in the US (when that is to their benefit) or her constant patting herself on the back for her morally superior stances on sexism and consumerism."

No unauthorized opinions! And you can't complain about sexism against women unless you complain louder about sexism against men!

Also, you can't say women are physically more vulnerable than men, because sometimes men get beat up too. Uh, huh.

Seriously, I think hillary should have had more tact, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm also torn between considering this a very human (albeit unprofessional) response and being irritated because this is not exactly going to defuse the "women are irrational and let their emotions get the best of them" crowd.

Yes. The strident victim mode of current feminists is tiresome as is the smug "I'm organic and better than you attitude". The demand that everyone all across the world bend to the American Woman's vision of feminine equality is also tiresome.

Is there sexism and suppression of women in the world. Of course there is. It wasn't that long ago that women were treated in much the same way in this country. Lisa and Laura are probably both too young to have experienced "real" sexist discrimination, yet they are the ones whining about their perceived treatment and every tiny slight the loudest.

As a woman, those attitudes irritate the Hell out of me because it just puts the advancement of equality backwards.

The issue of Hillary blowing up at the college student is not so much a feminist or sexist issue as it is the issue that Hillary, as the top Diplomat of the US, acted like a petulant teenager and inappropriately for her status and for her location. She was rude and undiplomatic. If you want to make that about her being a woman, go for it.

Your contention that there is some sort of "memo" or conspiracy to put women down on this blog is just ridiculous. Even if there were and you can't handle it....that's your problem.

"yet they are the ones whining about their perceived treatment and every tiny slight the loudest."

Oh, give me a break.

I am 48 years old. I have been around the block, DBQ.

Lisa expressed the opinion that the question posed to Hillary was sexist, then that we shouldn't tolerate sexism in other cultures b/c multiculturalism is crap. For this she was called an uber-feminist and had her marriage insulted. Looks to me like the people who couldn't just disagree with her or ask for clarification, but had to attack her as a woman and a human being, are the people who have the problem.

I agree that Hillary needs to have better self-control and that she doesn't appear suited to represent the USA. I object to people jumping all over Lisa and calling her everything but a child of God because she expressed a damn opinion.

Please do not ever think that PC-ness confines itself to the left. Conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, whatever else you want to call yourself, have their set of authorized attitudes and opinions too. You can tell which ones they are, because disagreement doesn't get "I disagree" feedback, it gets "you are a miserable wretch" feedback.

Lisa brought up the organic stuff BECAUSE she was accused, with no evidence, of supporting sexism against men in advertising. Because if she buys Clorox and the Clorox ads don't show men in a positive light, she can never object to sexism against women, ever. Now you're accusing her of being smug about buying organic.

What is it about Lisa's observations about sexism that pulls your chain?

In reading Clinton's Africa focus for each country, a primary focus and a focus of the university forum was Congo's sexual violence and after her slogging through refugee camps her response to what she thought the question to be, if not diplomatic in tone or demeanor was, perhaps, understandable and even appropriate.

I can only speak for myself, but the feminist debate is a hot-button for me (39, married with kids, male).

What I think you're mistaking for PC on the right is actually anger lashing back toward the left, the originators of PC. For my own part, I grew up in the 70's and 80's. PC was CONSTANTLY pounded into us from all sides public.

I'm of the opinion that political correctness doesn't survive long in the wild (or, more simple, the real world). When people from the left, or simply people making statements based on left-leaning concepts, get caught up in their own logical fallacies and refuse to admit as such, those of us that were browbeat with the PC stick for a good portion of our lives.

PC is yet more of the world-as-is versus the world-as-we-would-have-it.

I don't think it will survive my son's generation, honestly, much like I don't believe any vestiges of 2nd Wave feminism will last past the boomers shuffling off this mortal coil.

"Being rude and undiplomatic as a knee jerk reaction to a self perceived sexist question or action seems to be OK with you?"

No, being ugly to somebody and making ugly personal statements because you disagree with her is not OK with me.

What about this statement of mine: "I agree that Hillary needs to have better self-control and that she doesn't appear suited to represent the USA." leads you to think that I am excusing Hillary's behavior or thinking that her being rude and undiplomatic is OK?

"Feminists acting like jerkoffs are exactly what impedes the ability of women to gain respect and equality."

1 - You introduce an opinion to me that doesn't agree with mine - I look at it analytically, possibly argue a bit to clarify, then either incorporate it into my worldview or discard it.

2 - You introduce an opinion to me that doesn't agree with mine - you are a bad person and need to be flung into the outer darkness. God forbid that I should question my opinions, ever.

I don't think PC-ness will ever go away because 2 is a function of human nature. It started on the left b/c the left was the first to get the government on its side and the law behind it. But it's just tribalism, non-critical thinking, seek-out-the-mutant you're-not-one-of-us crap, either way.

"It started on the left b/c the left was the first to get the government on its side and the law behind it."

If moving left means more government and moving right means left, in strict terms, then the extremes are left/tyranny and right/anarchy. Thus, it was always the "left" making the pc laws, even going back to the Puritan days. I know that cuts against what most people think of as Left and Right, but the Puritans were moral tyrannists, ie, leftists.

So, Scott, you are not interested in the opinion of any woman on gender equality. For you, signing up for the draft is the one and only issue of importance and women can sit down and shut up.

Got it.

As to PC, there are different ways to do the left/right split - I wrote about that on my blog here. The government isn't behind most people who act in such a way that other people accuse them of PCness, though, and it isn't behind all PC mindsets.

That's a fine attempt to reword what I said. I used the qualifier "slightly" in any case.

Assuming I did believe exactly what you say I do, which I don't, how could you agitate for equality when 51% of the population isn't included in the most fundamental requirement of our society?

So...you'll fight to get an extra couple bucks and hour to close the dubious gap, but you're not interested in either stepping up to require that 51% to do the same (registering) or removing the requirement completely for both sexes?

I freely admitted that this is a hot-button for me and I see it through that lens. How many others hereabouts are willing to make a similar admission?

B - I'd like to do away with the draft altogether. But once again - ONCE AGAIN - you don't want to see sexism discussed unless sexism against men is discussed first.

Registering for the selective services is literally a life or death issue. In the spectrum of issues that come up when discussing equality between the sexes, this, in my opinion, is first and fundamental. Anything else, while still important, does not reach this issue's level of immediacy or, indeed, it's clear-cut black-and-white dichotomy. In point of fact I do always ask someone's opinion on this issue before I'm willing to listen to what they have to say on the rest of gender equality. If they're against it for both sexes, that cancels out any suspicion of intellectually dishonestly I might have and the discussion can then flow unencumbered.

C - Am I actually agitating for equality? Or am I asking that Lisa be allowed to express an opinion without being personally insulted?

I meant you in the wider sense of the debate. And I don't believe I ever defended personally insulting Lisa. She's free to make whatever claim or opinion she wants, in my book, as long as she defends it or admits a flaw in the logic if it's successfully pointed out.

The whole thing, for me, began at the point of assuming another culture would bow to the same definitions of sexism we do. In fact, to that point, by merely voicing that sentiment, she is opening herself up to claims that she does in fact believe that some societies are better than others. This is something most moral equivalency adherents will not do.

I meant you in the wider sense of the debate. And I don't believe I ever defended personally insulting Lisa. She's free to make whatever claim or opinion she wants, in my book, as long as she defends it or admits a flaw in the logic if it's successfully pointed out.

Then we're straight.

The whole thing, for me, began at the point of assuming another culture would bow to the same definitions of sexism we do. In fact, to that point, by merely voicing that sentiment, she is opening herself up to claims that she does in fact believe that some societies are better than others. This is something most moral equivalency adherents will not do.

Here's a quote from Lisa: "Multiculturalism is a pile of horse shit that folks use to excuse the mistreatment of women around the world among many other atrocities." I don't think Lisa would have a problem saying that she things some societies are better than others. And I don't think she's a moral equivalency adherent. What I think is that she strayed from the reservation and a bunch of folks tried to jam her into an airhead left-wing feminazi pigeonhole. And when she wouldn't be jammed, insulted her or demanded that she take on their concerns before having any of her own. - "Only buy products who's advertising doesn't include men/husbands/fathers portrayed as complete bumbling, idiotic, oafs."

As far as buying products and advertising, that was a challenge to her as one who invoked sexism. My opinion on the matter in general is that if you're going to level a charge of sexism at someone for something, all other examples of outright sexism should also be verboten. Any exercise in moral purity is doomed to failure, I admit, but she didn't have to go down Smug Avenue to get around the challenge to begin with.

Even a minimally observant person has to admit the disparagement between husbands/fathers/boyfriends and their gender opposites in advertising. Having been in broadcasting for years and having produced many radio ads myself, I know exactly why it's done and it's completely wrong.

As far as buying products and advertising, that was a challenge to her as one who invoked sexism. My opinion on the matter in general is that if you're going to level a charge of sexism at someone for something, all other examples of outright sexism should also be verboten.

Well, that's fine, if Lisa had earlier countenanced other forms of sexism. Otherwise you're asking for a 5-page essay calling out and disapproving of every example you can think of, of other kinds of sexism, before she can express an opinion about this one.

Any exercise in moral purity is doomed to failure, I admit, but she didn't have to go down Smug Avenue to get around the challenge to begin with.

Well, I kind of thing she did, if you're going to classify what she said as going down Smug Avenue. I don't watch TV myself, partly because I cannot stand those vapid commercials. I don't subject myself to them because they irritate the crap out of me. So they are not in the front of my brain. If you ask me what I think about sexism in commercials I'll tell you I'm agin' it. But I'm not going to volunteer this if it's not been brought up in discussion, it doesn't occur to me to do so because I've successfully removed them from my life. Therefore even if I do purchase Clorox I'm not supporting sexism against men, unless you want to hurl this one at me: "That would put you in the category of innocent through willful ignorance, wouldn't it? Haven't the feminists been carping that everyone should examine and study to find the chauvinism?" (As if Lisa has expressed the desire to do what "the feminists" have evidently carped upon her to do.) Now you can call that going down Smug Avenue if you want, but it just seems like rational behavior to me.

"Hillary's reaction was completely reasonable and appropriate given the question."

The question was ridiculous, probably because of a mistranslation. That's why the correct response is not anger. If she were arguing with an antagonist then maybe, but not in this venue. The correct response would have been humor, instruction or even to gently dismiss it, but anger was out of place and petty.

I think it is not very important, just demonstrates some lack of diplomacy in a diplomat, unfortunately due to petty insecurity.

The Congo has the worst record of human rights/ violence against women in the world and Hillary has spent some of the trip touring facilities and pledging aid.

She was primed to be in a paranoid, testy state-of-mind IOW.

This isn't as bad as Pelosi with the "Senator" bit, imo.

I think Hillary should have stayed in the Senate. She's not the first female SoS so there is no ground being broken. She's serving directly under Obama instead of being more of an in-party power player loyal opposition with her own power coalition in the Senate where she could focus on heathcare more specifically.

There are a couple of ways to lok at it (the Hillary! think in Congo). One is:

1) In twenty years the US could be fighting a war over there. (For the sake of argument let's say it's a "good war" and we're doing the right thing, not explotiing whoever.) An F-35 goes down; the pilot comes to earth in the middle of a Congolese village.

Do we want the villagers to tend to him, protect and hide him; ignore him, shun him, drive him away; call the authorities on him; or mob him, tear him to pieces, drag around his body in the streets?

I wonder if a spazz on the part of a SoS can affect the villagers' mindset in such decision-making?

2) She missed her teaching moment, if you call it that. She could have said easily and smoothly,

In your country (or 'in some countries' if you like), this is a sensible question, because women are not free to have their own opinions, and with your primitive tribal structures, any opinion can be assumed to represent the thoughts of the boss, patriarch, tribal leader.

In the United States, however, everyone has their own opinions and viewpoints and represents him- or herself. So you would really do best to ask him what he thinks, if you ever have the chance. I do of course spend (have of course spent) more time with Bill than you do, but I really can't speak for him any more than he can speak for me.

Or some such thing, I'm not going to spend all day on it. But that would be a teaching moment being taught, not an outburst by Snippy McSnipperson.

3) Bill Clinton's brother could be asked the same thing and, while he also could be annoyed at being seen as "Bill Clinton's brother" and not his own man, it would not be sexist.

It is really a natural enough question, if you meet someone close to a VIP, to ask that person what the VIP thinks. It might be unflattering, as if somebody came up to A-Rod and said Hey, tell me about Derek Jeter, but if you are more interested in Jeter than Rodriguez, and have no graces, then...

Maybe the big people don't have to be gracious to the little people, but I'm sure it looks better.